FW: OID value assigned to MODULE-IDENTITY invocation

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I know Juergen is on Mreview list. Not sure about Frank,
that is why I am forwarding.

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
Sent: zondag 13 april 2003 4:14
To: C. M. Heard; Mreview (E-mail)
Subject: Re: OID value assigned to MODULE-IDENTITY invocation


HI,

SMIlint is just wrong in its characterization of the construct as
an error.

Also, if you changed it from
  ::= { mib-2 37 3 } -- atmMIB 3 (see [3])
to
  ::= { mib-2 foo(37) 3 } -- atmMIB 3 (see [3])

and the message goes away, then there is a bigger problem.

At 11:51 AM 4/12/2003 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
>MIB Doctors --
>
>While doing a little bit of spadework for the AToM MIB WG
>chairs, I got the following error messages out of smilint
>for the ATM-TC-MIB:
>
>% ./smilint -l 6 -s -m -i type-unref -i integer-misuse ./ATM-TC-MIB
>./ATM-TC-MIB:43: [6] {} implicit node definition
>./ATM-TC-MIB:11: [2] {parent-node} node's parent node must be simple node
>./ATM-TC-MIB:346: [6] {} implicit node definition
>
>The e-mail robot gave similar output:
>
>This command (smilint 0.4.2-pre1, as of Sat Mar 08 10:42:09 2003)
>has been processed to get the following results:
>smilint -m -s -l 6 -s -m -i type-unref -i integer-misuse ATM-TC-MIB
>
>ATM-TC-MIB:43: [5] {} warning: implicit node definition
>ATM-TC-MIB:11: [2] {parent-node} node's parent node must be simple node
>ATM-TC-MIB:346: [5] {} warning: implicit node definition
>
>The level 2 error (and the first of the level 5 or 6 warnings) was
>for this definition:
>
>atmTCMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
>     LAST-UPDATED "9810190200Z"
>     ORGANIZATION "IETF AToMMIB Working Group"
>     CONTACT-INFO
>       "[ snipped ]"
>     DESCRIPTION
>      "This MIB Module provides Textual Conventions
>      and OBJECT-IDENTITY Objects to be used by
>      ATM systems."
>     ::= { mib-2 37 3 } -- atmMIB 3 (see [3])
>
>While we now frown upon such usage, I could not find anything in
>RFC 2578 to make me think that it would be illegal.  Am I missing
>something, or is smilint complaining about something it shouldn't?
>
>Mike
>
>P.S.  The other warning was for this, in case folks are curious:
>
>atmTrafficDescriptorTypes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {mib-2 37 1 1}
>                                       -- atmMIBObjects
>                                       -- See [3].
>
>I'm not concerned about either of these warnings, just the
>level 2 error message.
Regards,
/david t. perkins